dr1819

didn't see a "cause" when men wanted to wear earrings, they just got them and wore them.

Well, earrings are the same size for men as they are for women. Not so with heels (for most men).

Yo. No one can do Wiki (which I'd be happy to explain) or no one really bievles in how much of an effect their fashion freedom forums actually have on men.

I respectfully request all who are interested in balancing the negative opinions of a handful of rogue admins to visit my RFC page on Wiki.

Please post in the Outside View section, and sign it by using four tildes: ~~~~

The most abusive admin continues to claim that there is no such term as "MUG," short for Male Unbifurcated Garments, or that at the very least, it's a term used only by a very small group of people, or just those associated with just one website.

Thank you for helping to advance the cause against fashion myopia.

Ok - I see. Personally, I think this is fair. After all, if ISPs can offer two or more bandwidth options to home users, charging different prices for each, as many currently do, why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same with their business customers? We find this is actually the case - it's been done this way for years. One of the misnomers about throughput, however, is that people often say "less throughput is less expensive." That's not always the case for a company serving content to multiple users. If the content is slow, they loose users, which is also costly, particularly if they're paying customers. The other issue is that throughput is typically measured on a per session basis, with a "session" being each connection between the web server and the client (you and I). The total throughput is largely irrelevant, provided the per-session throughput remains fast enough to carry out the task in a timely manner. Servers that dish up primarily text content, like HHPlace can afford to use servers that have a fairly low throughput per connection, while servers distributing large programs for download, like Norton Antivirus, much has a fairly high throughput per connection. Thus, the total throughput, what companies actually pay their ISPs to provide them, is merely a function of the per session throughput times the number of sessions. The best solution for this is for ISPs to charge on a "per byte" basis, but so many people screamed bloody murder that it never got off the ground, except in very limited special cases.

I think the difference this isn't that congress is going to tax the internet, rather congress refuses to pass legislation to prevent companies from charging a different rate structure for faster download vs slower dowloading.

Also, it sounds like the rate will be charged to the owner of the website vs the viewer. Probably what will happen is the larger owners (Yahoo, Google, CNN, etc) will eat the costs to kill start ups, and then start passing the costs onto customers.

Translated, you will eventually have to start paying for sites you visit OR suffer slow connections.

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. Companies serving up content don't charge me anything. Only my ISP charges me, and they have different rates for different speeds.

Those companies serving up content also pay based upon the level of services, storage required, and throughput.

The only time I pay one of these companies is when I buy their product.

Are you thinking that someone like Symantec will tack on an additional $5 to download Norton Antivirus 2006 at 2 Mbps vs 1 Mbps? If so, I retain full choice, so I see no problems with this approach, as the market will rapidly set the price points (if no one's paying the extra $5, Symantec my do away with it altogether as the additional cost of maintaining the option is likely more expensive than the generated revenue).

I'm still not sure what you're getting at, so please help me to understand with an example or two. Thanks!

Ok... :splat: The rest of you :drinking: are probably LYAO by now, if not :sleeping: . Concerning my last comment, I'm shamefully , but will continue to remember that SOCAL means Southern California. I used to live in NOVA, so I definately should have caught on to the abbreviation!

Where's SOCAL? I've an extensive database on various joints around the globe. Might be able to hook you up!

dr1819:: I appreciate that for a lot of people, having the heel all black is desirable. On the other hand, the heels were black before being honed down and I wanted the contrast of the leather sole and heel on the black boot. It was that look I was going after from the start, really. At least on this pair of boots. I really like the denim skrt, probably more than the leather one. Just wish it was a bit longer, but I guess they're not made for big guys like me anyway, right?

If your waist is around 38 or less, Newport News offers a number of skirts that are 38 inches in length, more than long enough to fully meet ankle length criteria, even for us taller guys.

http://www.newport-news.com/shop/subcat_twelve.asp?gpcatID=1875&pacatID=1878&catID=1896

...a shoe so bad but couldn't get it because it wasn't in your size?

Here's my pic of the month:

What I wouldn't do to own a properly-sized pair of these!

Dude - you're just like this babe magnet, you know? Sounds like a real problem. Perhaps you should try, oh, like not shaving, or blowing your nose farmer style. That might shed a few boo.. er, babes.

I can relate with your experiences! When I first began wearing heels, I went twice to an alternative lifestyle bar, thinking I'd be more comfortable there, and I didn't dare wear heels anywhere in public, except between my car and the front door, during which time my heart was pounding so hard I thought I might pop an aorta. After three hours in the bar, during which time I received precisely three comments from the TSes including "I like your boots," "nice heels," and "Woah, baby, I love your shoes), all of which were given to solicit tips, I left. I returned one more time, briefly, but that scene was just not me (too many perverts there for other reasons). After a couple of months I braved another location, this time at a normal watering hole, somewhat dimly lit, but frequented by a much more conventional crowd. It was here that I learned that a guy wearing heels is no big deal, a mild novelty, and can be an interesting conversation piece among the ladies. In fact, several women tried picking me up for no other reason than they found my sense of fashion and my inhibitions attractive (didn't take 'em up on it, but that's when I was married). These days, I lounge around in heels pretty much whether I need to be for other reasons, like McDonalds (lunch and sometimes dinner), the movie theater, the library (well, before I moved to Germany - I'm still German illiterate!), and around the house. And of course I feel far more comfortable, socially, and relationally, just doing normal things in normal places, than I did on those two occasions I tried "hiding" out with others who supposedly shared my penchant. As with your experience, I was the only conventionally-dressed male wearing heels, as the only other males wearing heels were sporting fairly well-filled c-cups, and probably wouldn't identify as being labeled a "male" anyway.

Similar to one of my favorite skirts, which I often wear with my own 4" heeled boots. Instead of trying to de-dye the soles and front of the heel, have you considered making the whole boot black? Kiwi black leather polish works quite well on hard surfaces such as heels to make them as black as the boot - it's what I used on my stacked leather heels and bottem edges to change them from light brown to pitch black so they match the black leather of my boots. I'm not much into contrast stitching, either - Kiwi's good for that, too!

Sadly, the Men's Fashion Freedom article I created for Wiki is on the chopping block, as well. Without anyone posting comments supporting keeping it, it'll go the way of my MUGs article.

So what you are telling me, you are not having feminine feelings wearing shoes or clothing not traditionally to men? Tactile sensation may be a "feminine sensation" I would say most women dress the way their feelings dictate or how they want to feel. Can't say that much about most men, can we?

Hmmm... I don't know, Hoverfly. I don't have feminine feelings when I wear heels. I like to run, ride bikes, backpack, fly airplanes, play raquetball, and shoot guns. Except for my online chats, I'm exactly into tea parties. Yet I do enjoy wearing heels more than flats, and dislike most fabrics except cotton and rayon. Are those "feminine feelings?" I tend not to think so, as I know that most guys don't like scratchy shirts, either, any more than most women. Even kilts made of rough wool are rapidly going out of style, being replaced by much more sensible materials as leather, cotton twill, etc.

The later half for sure.

Agreed.

Hey, if you can make it work and post the link to which all of us can have access, go for it, particularly if the title clearly reflects it's of men who choose to wear heels.

Hi, Daz - welcome back! Haven't heard from you in a while. I remember when earrings on men caused quite a stir. These days, even mainstreamers are wearing earrings, so it's no big deal. The earrings on men thing reached a critical mass. When that happened, it began to acceleration, until it permeated mainstream society to the point that everyone relaxed and said, "That's ok - everyone's doing it." After that, there were no more comments in the papers. I strongly believe the one thing that contributed to it's success, however, was the fact that most male earring wearers kept it on the conservative side. Thus, they blended. The only exceptions were those in segments of society that were already known for their excesses (punk/goth). Thus, the more we and others wear conservative heels in public, all the time, the more likely it is that others will begin doing the same, until a critical mass is reached, enough to propel the conformists who wish to wear heels into wearing them, too. That's the critical point, when those who conform begin conforming to a new norm which they're desiring, but dare not lead the way for fear of repercussion. Well, Daz, good luck! I just took a stroll to my friendly neighborhood castle wearing a pair of 2-1/4 inch Nickels ladies oxford lace-ups. The heels are solid wood, so they do make some noise, but looking at them very few would believe they're ladies' shoes. Perhaps tomorrow I'll make the 1.7 mile stroll in my new 3" heeled Statutes, a side-zip oxford. They're actually quieter than the Nickels, although with a much more slender heel. Very comfortable, both of them, and I'm glad they arrived today!

Excellent comments, Coyote. No mistakes that I can see! I heartily agree that the forum should remain on an honor system. I do think it's perfectly fine for members to reveal their own preferences, should they choose to do so.

I seem to recall posting herein, but in case I didn't: this short quiz to let other people know about a little about you. If you don't want to answer anything, leave it blank. Copy and paste the quiz questions to start you off. Name: David Resnick Age: 42 Gender: Male Location: Dortmund, GE Occupation: Engineer Height: 5'11'' Weight: 178 Shoe size: 11 US Men's (12.5 US Ladies) What's your favourite heel style: Tapered block with a round toe What's your favourite shoe style: Boot Do you wear your heels outside: Absolutely! What is: (a) Your favourite heel height: 3.5" ( Your highest heel height: 4" How often do you wear: (a) Your favourite heel height: As often as possible ( Your highest heel height: Rarely. Do you wear socks, hose, stockings or bare feet with your shoes: Only knee-highs, and then only because I'm an "in-between" size. Few styles are available in the next larger size I'd have to wear with socks. I don't like going barefoot with shoes, so I do wear knee-high stockings, which solve both problems. Anything else you wish to add: Nope!

Well here's what I wore around Paris last week...

Terrific!

I hope to make it to Paris this summer. I ;lan to take enough clothes that I can whatever I want to wear, as the situation suits. As I'll be driving, that won't be a problem - I'll have enough to wear whatever I feel like wearing.

I'll be armed with a rather extensive photographical setup, so I doubt the locals will give me any problems.

Well, if you really want to know people's gender, there's a lot of inputs! First, there's the genetic gender, which includes XX and XY, as well as the variants, XXY, XYY, XXXY, XYYY, etc. Next, there's the physical gender, how they appear. Male? Female? Neuter? Intersexed? Many factors, including the genetic gender, play a role in gender appearance. Then there's the psychological gender, the one which the individual identifies with the most, and includes the same categories as in the physical gender. Finally, there's the gender preference, which really muddies the waters, as it includes same sex, opposite sex, bi, and the whole host of what might be between. As you can see, it gets a bit complicated. Therefore, my recommendation for this board is to simply limit it to whatever gender the poster would like to express. As for me, I'm a heterosexual male who enjoys wearing skirts (as mankind has done for tens of thousands of years) and heels (as men have done for hundreds of years). Normal? Not quite, if you limit my preferences to the last couple of decades. But quite normal if you extend them to the time of our Founding Fathers, most of whom wore hosiery, breeches, and extended coats (stockings, capris pants, and dresses, in other terms). And, yes, some wore heels, although they were usually relegated to less than 2-1/2 inches by the time our nation was formed.

My letter: Dear Mr. President: As an avid user of the Internet since 1995, and a published author of several networking articles (Network World), I would like to provide you with a summary of the reasons behind my full endorsement of H.R. 5417. As you may know, this bill counters attempts by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to stratify Internet access. Any stratification at this time would relegate ordinary users to paying current prices for substandard services, or premiums to maintain current bandwidth. Those who were willing to pay premiums, however, would enjoy current, and greater standards of service, but only at a significant increase in price. While we are approaching a time, perhaps several years in the future, when stratification will not impinge on the rights of free access to the Internet, that future will require nothing less than fiber from the home to the Internet, a condition that's in place for less than 3% of all households, currently. There is significant doubt among industry experts that the requisite bandwidth will be available to 80% of the population by 2010. As such, this matter begs for a deferrment. Until the bandwidth milestone is reached, I respectfully encourage you, Mr. President, to endorse H.R. 5417, and so protect the rights of all Americans to access the Internet on a relatively equal, and unfettered basis. Thank you for your time. Sincerely,

Thanks, Kneehighs! My strongest letters to my Congressmen and Representatives, as well as the President, are being written now.

Here are the links where the rest (of you Americans) can contact your key elected officials: http://www.firstgov.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Here's a non-government site, but it offers greater flexibility with respect to contacting all your elected officials simply by entering your zip code: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

I'm with you, Anton. Excellent coordination in the photo immediately above! I think Alexandro's style as depicted in the last two pics of him herein is quite acceptable, as it's very stylish. While it may border on a gender-(vulger), it does so in a very fashionable style, and it's clear there wasn't a lot of makeup, wigs, whatever to make him look more feminine. Some men just have a look about them that's more feminine than masculine, just as some women could cut their hair, go without makeup, and most people would assume they're male. I say accentuate what you have!

I'd have to say this one's better than the first! Women: The Best Troops Around Take all American women who are within five years of menopause. Train us for a few weeks, outfit us with automatic weapons, grenades, gas masks, moisturizer with SPF15, Prozac, hormones, chocolate, and canned tuna - drop us (parachuted, preferably) across the landscape of Afghanistan, and let us do what comes naturally. Think about it. Our anger quotient alone, even when doing standard stuff like grocery shopping and paying bills, is formidable enough to make even armed men in turbans tremble. We've had our children, we would gladly suffer or die to protect them and their future. We'd like to get away from our husbands, if they haven't left already. And for those of us who are single, the prospect of finding a good man with whom to share life is about as likely as being struck by lightning. We have nothing to lose. We've survived the water diet, the protein diet, the carbohydrate diet, and the grapefruit diet in gyms and saunas across America and never lost a pound We can easily survive months in the hostile terrain of Afghanistan with no food at all! We've spent years tracking down our husbands or lovers in bars, hardware stores, or sporting events...finding bin Laden in some cave will be no problem. Uniting all the warring tribes of Afghanistan in a new government? Oh, please ... we've planned the seating arrangements for in-laws and extended families at Thanksgiving dinners for years ... we understand tribal warfare. Between us, we've divorced enough husbands to know every trick there is for how they hide, launder, or cover up bank accounts and money sources. We know how to find that money and we know how to seize it ... with or without the government's help! Let us go and fight. The Taliban hates women. Imagine their terror as we crawl like ants with hot-flashes over their godforsaken terrain. I'm going to write my Congresswoman. You should, too!